Right To Bear Arms Not Same As Right To Use Arms

This is in regard to the article published in the Payson Roundup on Tuesday, June 6, "The right to carry guns for self defense."

The fact that this right is guaranteed in our legal system does not mean that in every circumstance one should necessarily be prepared to exercise it.

Exercising that right carries with it a set of significant perils, just as does non-exercise. I suspect that the physical perils are about equal in these two options under ordinary circumstances, like going to church or hiking in the woods. The trouble is that once one has fired his gun, justifiably or not, the circumstances are no longer ordinary and the ceiling begins to fall about one's ears and the nonphysical perils begin to operate with great vigor and determination to destroy.

Is mere physical survival worth the implacable lifelong torment of perhaps having taken a life needlessly out of uncontrolled panic? Ask Mr. Fish.

Mr. Van Wyk, the subject of the above mentioned article, did not have an ambiguous circumstance operating in his experience. It was clearly black and white: Kill or watch many others die.

These two events are not at all comparable (Mr. Van Wyk did not compare them, but everyone in Payson planning to carry guns should examine these two cases).